They will probably tell you that there is not but if ATC have got a medium/heavy public transport aircraft at the hold potentially about to be held up by letting a C152 make an approach who do you think is going to get priority? (and rightly so to a degree).

NIKNAK
I take exception to your post calling Tim a tit, it actually takes a lot of balls to admit you were wrong and then go to the trouble of writing it out on a forum knowing that individuals like yourself are going to have a field day with a holier than thou attitude. You have also made a pretty crass post on the Blackpool Incident thread, is there something wrong with you, have you tried NHS direct?

That is not the point. A pilot of a public-transport flight has greater responsibility, and tighter restrictions than the pilot of an equivalent private flight. The same applies to high weights, they restrict the options if the pilot is considering what might go wrong, as he should be.

So you are OK with ATC asking a private Aztec do do somejng that would be regarded as unsafe or illegal for a public transport Aztec?

The public private information and weight is just a sarcastic way of saying "unable".

My Q was not should a747 not be pushed out ahead of a 152 doing circuits- it was a subtle jibe that between two Aztecs both being "normal" the PubT doesn't have any higher priority

Just to confirm it was a poilte way of me telling ATC I was not going to do an orbit, as commander of a public transport aircraft then and now, I alone make the final decision on what i am going to do to safely conduct a flight from a-b

Before we start arguing about the semantics of llanfairpg refusal to orbit on final, let's all agree that this was a highly unusual request at a highly inconvenient time. I'm sure all of us have had one of those one way or another, and did not have time to think of something to say that would be really appropriate, to the point and according to CAP413, but you've got to say something, not?

If llanfairpg had his brains wired in "public transport" mode (on time, on budget) and was already concerned about his landing weight, I can understand why he, at the spur of the moment, decided to add that information to his refusal, without thinking completely through whether those were indeed valid and legal arguments to use against a controller who, arguably, had his priorities wrong.

In any case, does a controller know, or is he/she supposed to know, which Aztec on final is a public transport flight, and which Aztec is close to max landing weight? Other than maybe a public transport flight callsign instead of the fuselage callsign, is there anything in the flight plan or otherwise that informs a controller of such? So the whole idea of saying "Confirm you know that..." followed by information that the controller has no way of knowing is already a bit odd.

In the spur of the moment we all say strange things. But the main message is: you can refuse such requests, and you should if it threatens your flight safety.

Life's a Beech,Warning - thread creep!

However, if traffic in Class G is under RAS, it must be seperated from other traffic as far as possible. This seperation may be achieved by requesting the other traffic to do something specific so it stays out the way.

Not sure if Calibrator flights would routinely request RAS???

FFF
-----------

No, which is why it is irrelevant information. Your Ops Manual might prohibit lots of things so you have to say unable more often than a private flight might have to. But it isn't a controllers job to guess what is in your Ops Manual or your SOPs or your personal minima.

Totally agree.

I've never been asked to orbit on final! - I've no idea what I would say, but I wouldn't do it.

I have been asked, on final for the tarmac, "can you reposition for the grass (parallel runway)", to which polite request one can say "yes, sure" or "no thanks", no "unable" is necessary; but following Southend the controller isn't even allowed to ask that any more.

"Near max landing weight" is perhaps referring to higher stall speed than if carrying less load?

Just to clarify or re-clarify I am refusing to do anything in any aircraft (public transport or private) which I, the commander, considers to endanger the aircraft, that is written in law and is my right. If the controller is this case had said, ' Go around', I would have considered that to be safe and correct although I may have added in this case, " confirm you are a licensed ATC controller?"

I had a similar event at Birmingham about 5 years ago where a controller asked me to go around in a medium jet transport while a similar aircraft on a test flight was told to line up. I filed an ASR as I thought the go-around was unessecarry and the controllers situational awareness to be extremely poor. I was later informed by the CAA in writing that the controller had been 'spoken to'!

I thought it was a Duchess because... I'm 90% certain that's what ATC referred to it as. And I know a Duchess is a twin. And I'm not a plane-spotter, just a pilot.

I'm slightly unsure why that makes me look a tit, Niknak...

And where does it say a calibration flight has priority, by the way?

Tim

mm flynn

You are asking an impossible question. I don't know the circumstances. I do know that I have made an approach on a private flight, perfectly safely, that would have been illegal on a public-transport flight. If you know about the regulations applying to an AOC flight, and the status of an ops manual then you would know what I mean.

My point is that priority is irrelevant. The key is responsibility and flexibility, or lack of it. I would accept clearances on a private flight I would not on a public-transport flight. Not unsafe, just not as safe as I want of my crews on public-transport flights. Some of those clearances would be acepted by some of our competitors; it comes down to professionalism. A pilot on a private flight is not expected to be as professional. Maybe not how you think it should be, but it is reality.

FFF

In class G or D IFR traffic is not separated from VFR, however I suspect you are correct. Over controlling is an issue I have come across occasionally, when I cancel IFR to expedite but a controller still tries to give separation where I can see perfectly well!

Bringing us back from the thread creep, the response should therefore have been "unable, maintaining 1x00 feet to remain VMC". Was the ATC instruction given correctly then? Should terminology be changed, as it sounds like an instruction to an aircraft that should not have been subject to a mandatory instruction?

Therein lies a whole thread on the tendency of military controllers to treat a MATZ as CAS and issue instructions accordingly...

Tim